On 9/27/22 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/27/2022 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/27/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2022 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/27/22 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/27/2022 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/26/22 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 12:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:42:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 12:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:15:15 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 11:05 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-09-26, Lew Pitcher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, guy, but comp.lang.c is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place to discuss this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. Why don't you try comp.theory ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Olcott postings will push you out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visibility?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If people would give me a fair and honest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review I could quit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting. You gave up on me before I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out the error with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the diagonalization argument that you relied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on for your rebuttal:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The diagonalization argument merely proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no value returned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to P from its call to H can possibly be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. This argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally ignores that the return value from H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unreachable by its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated P caller when H is based on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This makes it impossible for P to do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Project)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) x86utm operating system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) complete x86 emulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Several halt deciders and their inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contained within Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_09_07.zip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep making the same mistake again and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. H IS NOT SUPPOSED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE RECURSIVE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) is not recursive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is recursive because P isn't recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and yet you have to abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your infinite recursion: the recursion is caused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by your H and not by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.  Nowhere in any halting problem proof does it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state that the call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H by P is recursive in nature BECAUSE H IS NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SUPPOSED TO EXECUTE P, H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS SUPPOSED TO *ANALYSE* P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere in any HP proof (besides mine) is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of a simulating halt decider (SHD) ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought all the way through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the proof doesn't care at all how the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider got the answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the definition of a UTM specifies that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct simulation of a machine description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provides the actual behavior of the underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine whenever any simulating halt decider must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation to prevent infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation it is necessarily correct to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this input does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, which means it CAN'T be a UTM, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *ITS* simulation does not define the "behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the correct simulation of the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is its actual behavior. That H correctly predicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that its correct simulation never stops running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted conclusively proves that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated input would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the behavior the halting problem is asking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the behavior of the actual machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only within the context that no one ever bothered to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the application of a simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the way through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of the Actual Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That definition is made obsolete by a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, the definition IS the definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't get to change it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I created a new concept that makes earlier ideas about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this obsolete:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the definition of a UTM specifies that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of a machine description provides the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of the underlying machine whenever any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider must abort its simulation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent infinite simulation it is necessarily correct to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report that this input does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the above is verified as correct on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of its words it is irrefutable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but H isn't a UTM, so its simulation doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you can specify that material difference between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, that would seem to prove that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H doesn't correctly repoduce the behavior of a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, it isn't a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩      // subscripts indicate unique
>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating: (unless their
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, you say "unless their simulation is aborted" but your
>>>>>>>>>> defiition of H DOES abort its simulation, thus this doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> occur.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then H2 simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This exact same behavior occurs when we replace H with a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But since H ISN'T a UTM, you can't assume that it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H is designed to predict the result of 1 to ∞ correctly
>>>>>>>>> simulated steps, thus predict the behavior of a UTM simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H does correctly predict the actual behavior of 1 to ∞ simulated
>>>>>>> steps of P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, since we have shown that if H(P,P) returns 0, then P(P) will
>>>>>> Halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is false and you know it so you are a liar for the 500th time*
>>>>> *You know that you are not referring to the behavior of an input to H*
>>>>
>>>> No, I am refering to the input to H.
>>>>
>>>> The input to H(P,P) represents the computation P(P), or your P isn't
>>>> the required "impossible Program".
>>>>
>>>
>>> You cannot find a competent source that agrees that the actual
>>> behavior of the input is not provided by the correct simulation of
>>> this input.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Correct AND COMPLETE simulation of the input.
>>
> So like I said you have no source, you and most other are only going by
> learned-by-rote so when a new issue comes up your flounder. The others
> here not going by learned-by-rote are going by total cluelessness.
>
>

What about the Linz definition of a Halt Decider, the one YOU quote.

YOU have no grounds to change that, so YOU have failed.

You have YET to show grounds for ANY of your claims.

> -
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>  Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>  Arthur Schopenhauer
>

And stupidity thinks there is a target that isn't there.